The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. There isn't a clear consensus that draftification will solve the issues that a long main space tenure didn't, but nor is there a clear consensus that it isn't an appropriate solution. I will protect the mainspace title to enforce AfC, but have no issue with an experienced AfC reviewer or other admin removing it when the time is right. I do not need to be consulted. Star Mississippi 14:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arno Tausch[edit]

Arno Tausch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has already been at AfD three times, with decisions being keep, delete, and keep. In my opinion, albeit not too convincingly, this academic meets WP:ACADEMIC. So why then are we at AfD again? The reason is that this article is irredeemably promotional. Going through the history, it becomes evident that it has been promotional from the very beginning. One sign of this are the descriptions of Tausch's work sourced almost exclusively to his own publications, or to articles that mention him in passing. The article is also excessively refbombed with 196 (!!) references. The way it is written, it's rather shocking to see that such an incredibly successful and influential researcher has only ever held adjunct and visiting positions... Given the foregoing, I tagged this for WP:CSD#G11, but that was denied by Liz given the AfD history. However, cleaning this up so that it becomes an acceptable neutral bio will be a major undertaking and given that I haven't found a neutral version in the article history, I argue that it would be better to start from scratch and that WP:TNT applies, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Draft & require mandatory rewrite Two aspects of this:
  1. The article is clearly promotional & poorly written. The statement that WorldCat (Worldcat Identities) lists three book titles present at more than 1000 global libraries, and two more books present at more than 300 libraries. should never appear in any article. That is the type of the information that ((Authority control)) is meant to present, if it is of interest of to the reader. I feel that there are many other examples in the article, including the WP:Citation overkill. This article is simply not ready for prime-time & needs to be pruned & rewritten. I would recommend only moving it back to the main space when a consensus has been made to do so.
  2. The subject is notable. See these searches:
     • https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48&q=%22Arno+Tausch%22&btnG=
     • https://www.semanticscholar.org/search?q=Arno%20Tausch&sort=relevance
     • https://core.ac.uk/search?q=Arno%20Tausch
     • https://www.base-search.net/Search/Results?lookfor=Arno+Tausch&name=&oaboost=1&newsearch=1&refid=dcbasen

I believe we should move this article to the Draft namespace as soon as possible. Peaceray (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't disagree with you, but why would moving it to draft result in a neutral article when 9 years in main article space did not succeed? --Randykitty (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• First, this is one of the reasons for the Draft namespace. In fact, there is an entire page devoted to the draft rewrite of notable academics.
• Second, there are different deletion rules that apply to drafts versus articles, specifically WP:G13 that covers abandoned drafts. Whereas something in the main space can exist for years until an AFD discussion comes along, a draft that has been untouched for over six months can be speedily deleted. Peaceray (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• But while it is standard operating procedure to move newly-created sub par articles to draft, it is exceedingly unusual to move an article that has been around for years to draft space. In fact, WP:ATD-I specifically talks about "newly created articles". I'm not entirely against it, but it's very unusual. --Randykitty (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Referring you again to specifically Wikipedia:Drafts #As a result of a deletion discussion & also WP:AFDTODRAFT.

  I have seen this occur a number of times. Just search for Draft in these histories:

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theresa_Greenfield&action=history
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_School_of_Temple_Arts&action=history

  I think that I have seen this at least a dozen times, so pretty much accepted as a standard alternative practice to deleting a not-ready-for-prime-time article. Peaceray (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Cesar, Circus Maximus, Thumb up, Thumb down? User Randykitty seems to push for a quick deletion of the Tausch article, which she proposed already three times for deletion before.

But more neutrality, please. This morning, I visited the website of one of the best libraries of political science in the world, the Dudley Knox Library of the United States Navy Postgraduate School in Monterey in California. Any Wikipedia decision maker now deciding in this deletion Circus Maximus process is kindly invited to look at the Tausch entries in the Monterey library system, ^[1].

User Randykitty stated in her present contribution in a sentence that could imply a lack of the necessary neutrality and a rather sweeping value judgement about the curriculum vitae of a living person stating that:

"The way it is written, it's rather shocking to see that such an incredibly successful and influential researcher has only ever held adjunct and visiting positions...". But Wikipedia is not the personnel service office of a University.

This non-neutral statement, together with the other non-neutral statement:

„In my opinion, albeit not too convincingly, this academic meets WP:ACADEMIC“

And

„I tagged this for WP:CSD#G11, but that was denied by Liz given the AfD history“.

Well, if user Randykitty were more familiar with the academic system in Continental Europe, she would realize that it is quite normal that "Privatdozenten" ^[2], i.e. "adjunct professors" are working nowadays for hundreds of institutions, like government bureaucracies, think tanks, etc, and not only for the Universities. Arno Tausch, at age 71, joined the ranks of the Austrian diplomatic service in 1992, became Counsellor for Labour and Migration at the Austrian Embassy in Warsaw, and then, from 1999 onwards, worked for the Austrian Ministry of Social Affairs in Vienna until his retirement in 2016. ^[3]

In the framework of improving Wikipedia coverage of Austrian debates and Austrian political science, I will certainly do my best to improve the article over the coming weeks, and especially to shorten it and to free it from citation overload.

As to independent sources from the world press, I will refer to an interesting and very lengthy article published by Al Jazeera on Tausch, it's in Arabic, and I will certainly refer to it in the improved version which I will present. The reference is:

• إدريس قسيم (2022-02-06). "الدول العربية في الشرق الأوسط وشمال إفريقيا: الهشاشة وعوائق الديمقراطية قبيل أزمة كوفيد العالمية" [The Arab States of the Middle East and North Africa: Fragility and Impediments to Democracy Ahead of the Global Covid Crisis] (PDF). studies.aljazeera.net (in Arabic). Retrieved 2022-07-04.

Springer, one of the world’s biggest and most important publishing houses, now lists none the less than 70 entries with Arno Tausch as author, from 1980 onwards to the present day. ^[4]

At the end of the day, there are not too many Austrian political scientists, who have made it to the pages Le Monde and Al Jazeera and of think tanks like the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and the Institute for National Security Studies (Israel) in Tel Aviv. His regular contributions to Wiener Zeitung are a proof that this author also contributes to the defense of the values of the open society in Austria, so Wikipedia should handle this “thumbs up thumbs down” issue with great care. Austrian political observer (talk)Austrian political observer (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: You write "User Randykitty seems to push for a quick deletion of the Tausch article, which she proposed already three times for deletion before." This is incorrect. We are at AfD here, not speedy deletion and I did not propose this for deletion three times before (in fact I !voted ""weak keep" in the third AfD and none of the previous AfDs was initiated by me). --Randykitty (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: I did my best - I hope - to clean up the article. I translated the essence of the important Al Jazeera article as well, so the percentage of independent assessment and critique is now sufficient, I hope, so PLEASE remove now all these tags, SHALOM, SALAM, PAX Austrian political observer (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article, IMHO, is still not ready for prime time. Many citations are poorly formatted. With citation templates, there are no reason to have URLs displayed, except for the website parameter. There are extraneous new lines. Statements like External reviewers included Ulrich Albrecht and Wilfried Röhrich. just do not belong; maybe if Albrecht & Röhrich were notable, but without articles they are clearly not.

  I fail to see the justification for entire sections, such as Publications & Presentation of Tausch’s work in the 70th Anniversary Issue of the International Social Science Journal.

  I agree with Randykitty that 9 years in main article space is too long for something this poorly crafted. Moving it into the Draft namespace will force resolution of these issues. Peaceray (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Remains promotional even after cleanup attempts. There is no reason to think that pushing it into Draft space will result in any actual improvement; at best, it will languish there until it is deleted out of staleness. XOR'easter (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This appears to be a paper synthesis and largely promotional. A draft would not fix it after 9 yrs in main space. Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Article now changed substantially I did my best to remove materials which might look like promotional. Austrian political observer (talk Austrian political observer (talk) 05:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Stubify: Even with the cuts made above, the article still reeks of promotion, but as nom admits, he's probably notable. So why don't we just take the axe to the article? Curbon7 (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  we could do that in the Draft namespace. Peaceray (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The axe to the article: Dear user Curbon 7, an excellent idea. I admit that I am not a very experienced Wikipedia writer, and no Wikipedia:Edit warring is in front of you, and I wish you well in your endeavours. The Wikipedia category needs lot of work, and the same applies to Austrian historians, economists, sociologists etc. I simpliy cannot shoulder all these tasks alone. But on the talk page of the Tausch article, I will at least provide you with additional sources from the world press which might be useful for "the axe to the article" Austrian political observer (talk)Austrian political observer (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: Putting page through AfC process would be a good way to fix the issues identified with the page. Gusfriend (talk) 04:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I think he may pass WP:AUTHOR: A quick search found three reviews of his books [1] [2] [3] and I suspect a more thorough search would find more. The article could use cleanup but I don't think it's quite bad enough for a WP:TNT delete. And I don't see the point of draftification: keep or delete, don't pretend you're doing something else only to delete six months later. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible Error: The second review linked to by David Eppstein just above is to a review of a book by Arno Tausch published in 1954 Die Lautentwicklung der Mundarten des Trièves which can be translated as The sound development of the Trièves dialects . This book is not written by the Arno Tausch under discussion here - who our page says was born in 1951. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC))[reply]

• Reviews Thanks to user David Eppstein. The point he is making is a valid one, indeed. All those acquistition editors of international publishers, which printed articles and or books by Tausch since 1980, like Springer Nature, Palgrave Macmillan, and - one article - Oxford University Press would have been grossly negligent in their work, if there were not any reviews about this author. The following reviews and articles featuring the work of Tausch could be used in a re-written article, and as you immediately will see, the journals include real high impact journals like the Journal of Common Market Studies and Political Studies. So here are the titles:

In addition, the following few selected works, referring to Tausch's publications, could be used in this context:

Some of the think tanks, which published Tausch's work o er the years, include

• Hoover Institution, Stanford, California;

• Institute for National Security Studies (Israel);

• Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO RAS Institute), Moscow;

• IZA Institute of Labor Economics

• Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA), Jerusalem, Israel,

Open Syllabus, which is a database with nine million English-language syllabi from 140 countries and which was founded at The American Assembly, a public policy institute associated with Columbia University ^[1] lists 59 global classes using materials by Tausch on their syllabi. ^[2] By any standards, this would be an argument to keep.

Keep, weak keep, notable, not notable, thumb up thumb down? Isn't all that, in a way, absurd?

Austrian political observer (talk)Austrian political observer (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Austrian political observer (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article creator was clearly a Tausch SPA and spammed his name and writings all over Wikipedia: [4]. That said, DGG says on that editor's talkpage that Tausch deserves a decent article (but that this isn't it). I'm at a loss as to what to do but Draftify (and making it pass through AFC) or TNT spring to mind. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Final Cleanup: I provided a still shorter version of the article, relying on primary sources. I hope that all these tags are removed. Jokingly said: User Randykitty will protest perhaps against the mentioning of the UNDP Arab Human Development Report, but they really refer to Tausch's work; and I am not going to comment extensively on what recently has been written in major papers like Frankfurter Allgemeine on the decline of Wikipedia and its cumbersome editing process; but - how on earth can a relatively new Wikipedia writer know what TNT and all these abbreviations mean? I hope that with my new edits, this matter is now closed for good, and I can use my energy for other Austrian social science projects (talk)Austrian political observer (talk) 10:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian political observer, WP:PRIMARY sources are exactly what a Wikipedia article should NOT be relying on. Softlavender (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Final Cleanup - the first sentence should have read (sorry for the nomenclatura error): "I provided a still shorter version of the article, relying on good, and carefully checked external sources." This is what I did, look at the article, please.(talk)Austrian political observer (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Austrian political observer (talk) 04:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Austrian political observer (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.